Competitiveness,

Innovation and
Productivity:
Clearing up
the Confusion
Robert D. Atkinson
August 2013

The Information Technology

& Innovation Foundation
 COMPETITIVENESS, INNOVATION AND PRODUCTIVITY:
CLEARING UP THE CONFUSION

To listen to many economists, pundits and policymak-

ers discuss the economics of growth it would be easy
to be confused by the commonly used terms: com-
petitiveness, innovation and productivity. These terms
are often used almost interchangeably and with little
precise meaning. To remedy the situation, this policy
memo defines these terms and explains how each is
important in driving economic prosperity.
COMPETITIVENESS
With the increased globalization of the econo-
my, the term competitiveness has become ubiq-
uitous. But what does it actually mean? Most see
the term as synonymous with productivity. Har-
vard’s Michael Porter states, “The only mean-
ingful concept of competitiveness at the national
level is productivity.”1 The World Economic Forum’s
Global Competitiveness Report defines competitive-
ness as “the set of institutions, policies, and factors
that determine the level of productivity of a coun-
try.”2 And IMD’s World Competitiveness Yearbook
defines competitiveness similarly, but more broad-
ly, as how an “economy manages the totality of its
resources and competencies to increase the prosperity
of its population.”3
But while these terms are related, competitiveness
should not be equated with productivity or GDP growth.
To see why, it’s important to differentiate between trad-
ed and non-traded sector industries. A traded industry
is one where the firms sell a significant share of their
output outside a particular geographical area. For
example, a printing firm in Michigan that sells printed
material to customers across the United States would
be a traded firm from the perspective of the Michigan
economy, but a non-traded firm from the perspective
of the U.S. economy. In contrast, a software firm in
Washington that sells software throughout the world
would be a traded firm from the state and national
perspective.
NON-TRADED TRADED
Thus competitiveness relates only to the economic
health of a region’s or nation’s traded sectors (for the
purpose of this memo, the term “region” shall refer to
both national and subnational economies). But how
do we define health? One definition is jobs. However, if
one region’s traded sector is highly productive it could
have fewer jobs than another region’s even if the first
region is in fact more competitive. Another definition is
value-added—the amount of value that traded sector
firms add to the inputs of production that they pur-
chase. This is a closer definition, but fails to control for
the size of a region’s traded
sector economy, i.e. the larg-
If you listen to many
er the economy the larger
economists, pundits
the impact of the value
and policymakers, it
added on competitiveness.
is easy to be confused
In addition, if a region has
by the commonly used
vastly more imports, even if
terms: competitiveness,
its traded sectors are pro-
innovation and
ducing a large amount, its
economy is not holding its productivity.
own when it comes to com-
petitiveness. But focusing
on trade deficits alone fails to account for the fact
that a region might run a surplus but do so by subsi-
dizing its exporters (e.g., by manipulating its currency)
or erecting barriers to importers (e.g., tariffs).
In this case, the trade surplus may not be a re-
flection of the true competitiveness of the region’s
traded sector firms, but rather a reflection of the
extent of mercantilist aid the traded sector
firms receive.
The true definition of competitiveness is the ability of a
region to export more in value added terms than it im-
ports. This calculation includes accounting for “terms
of trade” to reflect all government “discounts,” includ-
ing an artificially low currency, suppressed wages in

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION Page 2

 export sectors, artificially low taxes on traded sector
firms and direct subsidies to exports. It also controls
for both tariff and non-tariff barriers to imports.

Under this definition, a nation may run a large trade

surplus (one component of competitiveness), but if it
does so by providing large “discounts” to its exporters
or by restricting imports it would not be truly competi-
tive, for such policies would reduce its terms of trade by
requiring its residents to give up some of their income
to foreign consumers and/or pay higher prices for
foreign goods and services.

We can see this by looking at past trends in the

U.S. trade deficit. While the rise in the relative price
of imports brought about
through the lower val-
The true definition of ue of the dollar in the
competitiveness is the
last half of the 1980s
ability of a region to export helped reduce the U.S.
more in value added terms
trade deficit; it also re-
than it imports. duced the U.S. terms
of trade (the United
States could buy fewer
imports for the same quantity of exports). Therefore,
U.S. competitiveness was unchanged even as the
trade deficit declined. Likewise, the fact that the United
States runs a massive trade deficit today but many of
its trading partners run surpluses by means of massive
“discounting” and import blocking means that we
cannot determine with certainty that the U.S. economy
is uncompetitive.
In fact, despite numerous studies claiming to compare
national competitiveness, no study to date has fully
accounted for export discounting and import restrict-
ing. While data exists on trade balances for virtually
all nations, data on the extent of export discounts and
import restricting (especially through non-tariff barri-
ers) are difficult to obtain. Despite this, at a cursory
level, it would appear that nations like Austria, Germa-
ny, and Sweden would be on a list of competitive econ-
omies (they run trade surpluses while also having
relatively high wages and limited discounts). In con-
trast, nations like China (too much discounting) and
the United States (too large a trade deficit even when
accounting for foreign subsidies) would likely
not make the list of competitive economies.
A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY IS ONE WITH A
TRADE SURPLUS, FEW BARRIERS TO IMPORTS,
AND LIMITED “DISCOUNTS” TO EXPORTERS.
So how does productivity fit into competitiveness? Pro-
ductivity growth can enable competitiveness, especial-
ly if it is concentrated in traded sectors, which lowers
costs and enables firms to sell more in global markets
without relying on government provided discounts. But
productivity growth can also be relatively unrelated
to competitiveness if it is concentrated in non-traded
sectors. Imagine a nation with strong productivity
growth but almost all of it in non-traded sectors like
grocery stores, electric utilities and nursing homes. Cer-
tainly incomes would go up as relative prices in these
sectors fall, but firms in traded sectors would only see
modest reductions in their costs based on the extent of
purchased inputs from non-traded firms.
INNOVATION
While competitiveness is almost always incorrectly
equated with productivity, innovation is usually de-
fined more accurately, although usually too narrowly.
Many see innovation as only technological in nature,
resulting in shiny new products like Apple’s iPad or
Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner. Still others believe innovation
pertains only to the research and development (R&D)
activity occurring at universities, national laboratories,
and corporations.

INNOVATION

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION Page 3

 While this is all true, it is much too limiting in scope.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and De-
velopment properly defines innovation more broadly as
“the implementation of a new or significantly improved
product (that is, a physical good or service), process, a
new marketing method, or a new organizational method
in business practices, workplace organization, or exter-
nal relations.”4 Innovations can arise at many different
points in the development process, including concep-
tion, R&D, transfer (the shift of the “technology” to the
production organization), production and deployment
or marketplace usage.
However, even when innovation is defined properly,
many equate it with competitiveness and/or produc-
tivity. For example, Bloomberg includes productivity
as one of its seven variables for ranking the 50 most
innovative nations.5 But while innovation is related to
productivity, and for that matter competitiveness, it
is not synonymous. There are many innovations that
have little to do with productivity or competitiveness.
For example, the innovation of the smart electric grid
will help boost electric util-
ity productivity, but will
While innovation is related
do little to boost compet-
to productivity, and for that
itiveness as electric utility
matter competitiveness, it
services are not typically in-
is not synonymous.
ternationally traded. Like-
wise, while the develop-
ment of a new technology to enable better weather
prediction would boost quality of life, it would also
not directly affect productivity. In contrast, the
creation of a new drug, a new kind of airplane
or a faster computer chip would not only enhance
traded sector industry competitiveness, it would
also improve quality of life and/or productivity.
So while innovation can increase productivity and
competitiveness, it is not synonymous with either.
PRODUCTIVITY
Productivity is perhaps the most straightforward
and easily defined of the three factors. Productivity
is economic output per unit of input. The unit of
input can be labor hours (labor productivity) or all
PRODUCTIVITY:
production factors including labor, machines and
energy (total factor of productivity).
OUTPUT UNIT OF = PRODUCTIVITY
INPUT
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION Page 4
Despite this, many analysts still use the term incorrect-
ly. For example, some argue that moving jobs to China
and lowering wages raises productivity because it lowers
prices. But while these actions might reduce prices, lower
prices are not the definition of productivity. In fact, moving
jobs to China might actually decrease productivity since
firms in China use fewer machines and are less efficiently
organized than firms in the United States.
To understand the sources of productivity, it’s important to
understand that economies have three ways to grow over
the medium and long term: growth in workers, growth in
productivity across-the-board and growth in the share of
activity in high-productivity industries. The first, growth in
the number of workers, is a non-sustainable strategy and
more importantly does nothing to increase productivity or
per-capita income growth. America would clearly enjoy
a larger GDP if the number of workers increased ten
percent, but the average income of workers would not
necessarily increase.
THE THREE SOURCES OF
ECONOMIC GROWTH
1. GROWTH IN
WORKERS
2. PRODUCTIVITY
IN ALL INDUSTRIES
3. GROWTH OF HIGH
PRODUCTIVITY INDUSTRIES
The second—the across-the-board “growth effect”—
occurs when a region’s productivity increases not by
higher productivity industry sectors becoming a larger
share of the economy, but by all sectors, low and high
productivity ones alike, getting more productive. For
example, retail trade, banking, health care and auto-
mobile manufacturing all increasing their productivity.
This across-the-board process can happen two ways: if
all the firms in an industry increase their productivity or
if the low-productivity firms in an industry lose market
share to high-productivity firms in the industry (e.g.,
smaller less productive “bricks and mortar” bookstores
go out of business because consumers prefer to buy
 e-books). This process of change within industries
occurs in all sectors but is not the major way industries
become productive. One study found that plant turn-
over from entry and exit contributes 15 to 25 percent
of Canadian manufacturing labor productivity growth,
with the other 75 to 85 percent coming from individual
firms becoming more productive.6
THE“GROWTH EFFECT” OCCURS WHEN
ALL OR MOST INDUSTRIES BECOME
MORE PRODUCTIVE
The third, the “shift effect,” occurs when the mix of
low and high-productivity industries, as opposed to
firms, in a region changes. For example, if a developing
nation loses 500 agricultural jobs (which in developing
nations normally have low productivity) and gains 500
software jobs (which normally have higher productivi-
ty), overall productivity would increase.
-500 +500
THE “SHIFT EFFECT” OCCURS WHEN
HIGH PRODUCTIVITY INDUSTRIES
GROW FASTER THAN LOW
PRODUCTIVITY INDUSTRIES
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION Page 5
But which productivity strategy—the growth effect or
the shift effect—is the better path to higher produc-
tivity? The answer depends in part on the size of the
economy and to a lesser degree on the type of sec-
tor. The larger the economy, the more important the
growth effect is since relatively lower shares of large
economies’ output are in traded sectors. Moreover,
the more local-serving the sector is, the greater the
importance of the growth effect. To understand why,
consider an automobile
factory in a small city. If
The lion’s share of
its managers install a new
productivity growth in
computer-aided man-
most nations comes not
ufacturing system and
from changing the sectoral
raise the plant’s produc-
mix to higher-productivity
tivity (the growth effect),
industries, but from all
a large share of the ben-
industries, even low-
efits will flow to the firm’s
productivity ones, boosting
customers around the
their productivity.
nation and even around
the world in the form of
lower prices. The city will benefit only to the extent
that its residents buy cars from that factory, if some
of the increases in productivity go to higher wages or
if the factory is able to employ more workers. In gen-
eral, even though most nations, especially developing
nations like Brazil, China and India, have focused their
industrial policies on boosting productivity by changing
their industrial mix, the lion’s share of productivity
growth in most nations comes not from changing the
sectoral mix to higher-productivity industries, but from
all industries, even low-productivity ones, boosting
their productivity.7
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
So if competitiveness, innovation and productivity
are separate but interrelated, which is most import-
ant for a region’s economic well-being? As discussed
above, this depends in part on the size of the region.
In general, however, productivity is the most important
determinant of a region’s overall per-capita income.
Yet, it would be a mistake to conclude that economies
can ignore innovation or competitiveness. Spurring
innovation can help productivity and competitive-
ness. And innovation means that future goods and
services will not only be cheaper but better. Spurring
competitiveness is important as well. Without com-
petitive sectors, a nation’s standard of living will be
 lower since it will have to give up more production to
pay for its imports. Moreover, as highlighted in Inno-
vation Economics: The Race for Global Advantage,
a weak traded sector can have spillover effects on
the overall economy, distorting investment patterns
and limiting growth 8. Competitive weakness also
creates a stiff headwind that other components of
growth (e.g., non-traded sector innovation and pro-
ductivity) must struggle to overcome. In fact, this
competitive weakness explains many of the current
problems faced by the U.S. and European economies.
The bottom line is: nations need to have well-articu-
lated and distinct strategies addressing competitive-
ness, innovation and productivity. No one strategy can
effectively address all three factors.
To date, no nation has adequately articulated the
differences between these three factors and in turn
developed distinct, stand-alone competitiveness,
innovation and productivity strategies. Rather, nations
tend to meld these together assuming that success in
one will lead to success in another. But this is a recipe
for underperformance. To truly succeed in today’s technol-
ogy-driven, global economy nations need to develop three
distinct strategies: one for success in innovation, one for
international competitiveness and one for productivity. Not
only will this lead to success in each of the three realms, it
will lead to reinforcing policies that benefit all three factors
and drive economic prosperity and quality of life.

COMPETITIVENESS INNOVATION PRODUCTIVITY

STRATEGY STRATEGY STRATEGY

NATIONS NEED WELL-ARTICULATED

AND DISTINCT COMPETITIVENESS,
INNOVATION AND PRODUCTIVITY STRATEGIES

A traded sector competitiveness strategy should focus

specifically on targeted policies—including trade, tax,
talent and technology polices—that improve the inter-
national competitiveness of a region’s traded sector
industries.9 An innovation strategy should focus on the
barriers to innovation (e.g., regulatory) and the needed
support systems (e.g., investment in R&D, support for
technology transfer and STEM education) that can
spur more innovation in all three major sectors of an
economy (for profit, non-profit and government).10
Finally, a productivity strategy should examine all
major industries and functions in an economy to
determine the barriers to growth and the policies
that can promote both the growth and shift effects.
This includes support for the development of “plat-
form” technologies, such as broadband, smart
grids and health IT. While all three strategies are
related they are also distinct enough that they de-
serve to be considered separately by policymakers.

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION Page 6

 ENDNOTES
1. Michael E. Porter, “The Competitive Advantage of
Nations,” Harvard Business Review, March 1990, http://
hbr.org/1990/03/the-competitive-advantage-of-nations/ar/1.
2. Klaus Schwab, “Global Competitiveness Report 2012-
2013” (World Economic Forum, September 2012),
http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-
report-2012-2013.
3. “World Competitiveness Yearbook 2012” (IMD World
Competitiveness Center, May 2012),
http://www.imd.org/wcc/wcy-world-competitiveness-
yearbook.
4. “Ministerial Report on the OECD Innovation Strategy”
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
March 2010), http://www.oecd.org/sti/45326349.pdf.
5. “50 Most Innovative Countries,” Bloomberg, February
2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-02-
01/50-most-innovative-countries.html#slide50.
6. John R. Baldwin and Wulong Gu, “Plant Turnover
and Productivity Growth in Canadian Manufacturing”
(Statistics Canada, April 2003), http://www.statcan.gc.ca/
pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2003193-eng.pdf.
7. James Manyika et al., “How to Compete and Grow: A
Sector Guide to Policy” (McKinsey & Company, March
2010), http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_
studies/how_to_compete_and_grow.
8. Robert D. Atkinson and Stephen J. Ezell, Innovation
Economics: The Race for Global Advantage ( New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2012). http://globalinnovationrace.
com/
9. James Manyika et al., “How to Compete and Grow: A
Sector Guide to Policy” (McKinsey & Company, March
2010), http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_
studies/how_to_compete_and_grow.
10. James Manyika et al., “How to Compete and Grow:
A Sector Guide to Policy” (McKinsey & Company, March
2010), http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_
studies/how_to_compete_and_grow.
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION Page 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank the following
individuals for providing input: Kathryn
Angstadt, Will Dube, Stephen Ezell, Alex
Key, and Ben Miller. Any errors or omissions
are the author’s alone.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Robert Atkinson is the president of
the Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation. He is also the author of the books
Innovation Economics: The Race for Global
Advantage (Yale University Press, 2012) and
The Past and Future of America’s Economy:
Long Waves of Innovation that Power Cycles
of Growth (Edward Elgar, 2005). Dr. Atkinson
received his Ph.D. in City and Regional
Planning from the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill in 1989.
ABOUT ITIF
The Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is a
Washington, D.C.-based think tank at the
cutting edge of designing innovation strategies
and technology policies to create economic
opportunities and improve quality of life in the
United States and around the world. Founded
in 2006, ITIF is a 501(c) 3 nonprofit,
non-partisan organization that documents the
beneficial role technology plays in our lives
and provides pragmatic ideas for improving
technology-driven productivity, boosting
competitiveness, and meeting today’s global
challenges through innovation.
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT WWW.ITIF.ORG.
GRAPHIC ATTRIBUTIONS
Bohdan Burmich, Adam Heller, Luis Prado, Jon Trillana,
Nicolò Bertoncin, all from The Noun Project.